Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will be hard to deflect promises kept especially when Americans see the results
And it seems that the only ones that have not noticed are the members of the
Democratic Socialistic Party mostly because that the entertainment division of the Democratic Socialistic Party has not
updated the liberal handbook to deflect the Success by President Trump while the whole time
having to deal with a NO EVIDENCE Democratic Socialistic Party sponsored event.
Next Up,
The ACCOUNTABILITY of the entire Barry Soroto A.K.A Barack Hussein Obama Administration
The nice thing about this will be that the Democratic Socialistic Party has pretty much laid out
what was done, so the cost will be much less and the subpoenas will be half as well
Something weird and whacky is in the air. I am a pretty astute observer of politics in the United States, and in just the last few says a sea change has occurred. There is not really one thing to point to, but a plethora of small things. Sometimes to see the way the wind is blowing, you have to look at all of the little stalks of wheat in the field. Go to realclearpolitics, look at the stories of the last few says, and you will find comments on...
1. The failure of identity politics in the democrat party, and how their potential nominees are all old white folks after all.
2. How their is no real front runner, and the first four states might be won by four different candidates.
3. How Trump is suddenly polling well among Hispanics (on the heels of his polling better among blacks).
4. Trump's dynamic economy and yet more stock market index records.
5. Potential trade deal with China in its first stages
6. Trump just might win/likely to win
7. Yes, Russia collusion was a witch hunt/FBI needs to be held accountable
8. Impeachment not shaping up as planned/one representative is switching sides because of it/loser agaisnt successful presidency
9. Boris Johnson seems to be presaging a sharp turn against the elitists/globalists/leftism in America
10. Biased news media might never recover its credibility
11. Focus group shows that Obama/Trump voters in Iowa, Michigan and Ohio are now JUST Trump voters
12. Spending deal includes 1.4 billion for border wall/wall being built
13. Opposition to impeachment now greater than support in Realclearaverage:
I have been a wonk since I was in fourth grade. I am telling you, believe it or no, that something fundamental is changing, and changing quickly. Peak leftism is gone for good. Trump is now clearly winning...not a crushing victory, but he has indisputably turned the corner.
One last thing, as I have been pointing out: whereas the DNC just got a million in the black, and the candidates are spending their money against each other, Trump and the RNC have raised a collective 100 million or so, tens of millions which have already been spent on identifying GOP votes in all purple and a few light blue states.
Bookmark this thread.
people have tired of leftist lunacy, which dwells on transgender bathrooms and everything "racist", rather than jobs for the middle class and reasonable taxes.
The dem party drifted to the party of the weird and disenfranchised, abandoning the average American.
If the dems ever woke up and became the party of the middle class, and did not focus on supporting every weirdo or pervert on the planet, perhaps they will have a future.
Boris Johnson winning in such a big way just may be a sign on some level of people getting tired of their leaders not paying attention to bread butter kitchen table issues and focusing on too many far left progressive ideologies.
People want common sense solutions to problems and to focus on the day to day issues, things like gender pronouns and all of that intersectionality stuff isn't what most average everyday middle class working people think about that often. Yet it's being crammed down people's throats. The top down approach isn't working for the left and I think the voters might agree.
I have said it in other threads that Trump has home field advantage going into 2020 (He is the incumbent and the economy is still performing well).
The thread you linked (see below) was hardly you predicting Trump WOULD win...you were merely noting that he COULD win. Granted that is more than many pundits but not a full blown prediction.
Wow, you didn't even read what I claimed that I said. Good job in remaining in your own world. Then again, you are a dem, so that is hat you do, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks
Do you still despise Trump? I really don't get this part...people/voters who recognized what a douche the guy was and can now somehow just forget it all. The ends justify the means?
I still despise the way he talks to women, which is what sickened me about him on the first place.
It is really not hard to understand why I am others are won over to vote for him despite the fact that we may not always approve of his behavior. He has gained results on tax cutting, gutting Obamacare, deregulation, destroying ISIS, concessions from China, Mexico and Europe on trade, getting money our of our so-called "allies" in Europe that have bled us dry over decades, building his wall, re-making the judiciary towards judges that actually believe in the Constitution, and leveraging Mexico to do more border enforcement.
And as vulgar as he is, he is still not the same level of pig as your average democrat, who accuses everyone of racism all the time, chases people with different opinions off campus, hits people with batons in the street, stages multiplier coup d'etats, supports every enemy of America, and occasionally spases out entirely and shoots the house whip.
Yours has become a party of pigs and useful idiots, just like Animal farm, and I will tolerate a little foul language to be rid of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
I agree, Trump has a decent shot at reelection. But if he does, it will Peak Conservatism. Trump is the final swan song of the Boomer generation.
Demographics say change is coming... towards the Left. Arizona, once solid red, is now purple and will probably be a swing state next year. The margin of Republican victories in Texas continue to shrink as demographic changes take hold there. Every year that goes by there are 700,000 fewer Boomers due to mortality.
In an Emerson poll, Bernie Sanders held a huge lead of 73% among Democrats in the 18-29 age range. That is huge.
The forces that are slowly building against the Republicans are 1) frustration among younger people that they cannot buy a home, due to high prices, low wages and staggering student debt, and 2) immigrant resentment for being made the scapegoat by the Republican party. Trump has a good shot at overcoming these slowly shifting sands one last time... after that, the political pendulum will be overdue to swing back to the other side, like it always does.
Again, I have been listening to this for 25 years, and yet here we are.
It is the Democrat freakshow that does not have a future--that is exactly what this thread is about. bookmark it. We are starting to feel the undercurrents that are going to change things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140
My first thought when reading this post was the article below about what happened in the U.K.
Just by reading the caption beneath the picture I can tell that this is PURE denial, and not worth reading in entirety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Err. Most of us know Trump has a good chance to win. The Democrats are doubling down on identity politics. This will kill them in the swing states. He will win the low information white voters by a large margin.
Let me add in no way was Trump fully vindicated involving Russian collusion.
He is beyond 100% vindicated. He was 100% vindicated when Mueller concluded that no American engaged in collusion at all. He has now turned the tables since the incompetence of obtaining the initial FISA warrant has been exposed.
Again, I think some of you are not really paying attention to things day to day, and just kind of clinging to the news of last year, last month, whatever.
Last edited by cachibatches; 12-17-2019 at 07:28 PM..
Wow, you didn't even read what I claimed that I said. Good job in remaining in your own world. Then again, you are a dem, so that is hat you do, I guess.
Tell me how I misquoted you as I directly quoted your old thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
I still despise the way he talks to women, which is what sickened me about him on the first place.
And as vulgar as he is, he is still not the same level of pig as your average democrat, who accuses everyone of racism all the time, chases people with different opinions off campus, hits people with batons in the street, stages multiplier coup d'etats, supports every enemy of America, and occasionally spases out entirely and shoots the house whip.
Yours has become a party of pigs and useful idiots, just like Animal farm, and I will tolerate a little foul language to be rid of it.
You despise Trump for how he talks to women and then in the same post you compare the Democratic party to pigs, violent thugs, supporters of the enemies of America, etc. Haha.
But please tell us when and where one of the Democratic candidates for President has advocated for violence against political opponents? In contrast, Trump has done just that on numerous occasions!
Here's the indicators that give Trump the definite edge next November:[list][*]No incumbent President has lost to a challenger OTHER THAN a governor or recent ex-governor since the 19th century. For those keeping score, there are no governors or ex-governors in the Democrat field.
[*]The electoral map swings red. California and New York would like to be the ones deciding elections all by themselves, but they don't, and Democrats have so far given very little in he way of motivating Middle America to switch horses midstream.
.
I agree that recent political history favors Governors as the most likely candidates to win the Presidency. Obama was the first sitting Senator to win the White House since JKF. I do wish there were more Governors in the Democratic field though you missed one: Deval Patrick, former two-term governor of Mass. is still running (though he got in VERY late).
The arguments for running a Governor for President include:
1. Despite serving away from Washington, governors often have more experience – and longer records – than many of the senators who are running.
2. Governors as a group are generally less ideological than senators. The nature of their job forces them to concentrate on nuts-and-bolts governance -- building roads and improving schools.
As a result, They don’t breathe the type of partisan fire that attracts attention in these polarized and ideological times. And that makes it hard for them to win the primaries where the base of each party is tilted to the left and right. Recall that the GOP field in 2016 had lots of Governors.
Obama lowered the bar for running with limited experience, winning the presidency during his first U.S. Senate term. Trump lowered it even further.
So this begs the question: Is the era of the Governor as the heir apparent to the Presidency over or is this current period a brief lull until we go back to that pattern?
I think one big flaw in the Governor for President argument is that we are looking at a very small sample....we've only had 45 Presidents. And Trump is not a "normal" President as even many of his supporters like to note.
All that said, I AGREE with you that the battleground states will be key and that is why I think a moderate like Klobuchar would be best suited to take on Trump. Too bad she isn't polling better.
Trump’s 2016 path to the White House was the political equivalent of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker. Breaching the Blue Wall states of the Midwest. That may not be replicable in 2020 with an agitated Democratic electorate. Though this all depends on who gets the nomination and what kind of campaign they run....
The Progressive movement, not only in the U.S. but also in Europe is now on the DECLINE. Thankfully it has been revealed for what it is. Totalitarian Oppression. Unfettered growth and control by the massive centralized Government is being REJECTED. Tyranny is being rejected, thankfully, and Trump is leading the way.
I agree that recent political history favors Governors as the most likely candidates to win the Presidency. Obama was the first sitting Senator to win the White House since JKF. I do wish there were more Governors in the Democratic field though you missed one: Deval Patrick, former two-term governor of Mass. is still running (though he got in VERY late).
The arguments for running a Governor for President include:
1. Despite serving away from Washington, governors often have more experience – and longer records – than many of the senators who are running.
2. Governors as a group are generally less ideological than senators. The nature of their job forces them to concentrate on nuts-and-bolts governance -- building roads and improving schools.
As a result, They don’t breathe the type of partisan fire that attracts attention in these polarized and ideological times. And that makes it hard for them to win the primaries where the base of each party is tilted to the left and right. Recall that the GOP field in 2016 had lots of Governors.
Obama lowered the bar for running with limited experience, winning the presidency during his first U.S. Senate term. Trump lowered it even further.
So this begs the question: Is the era of the Governor as the heir apparent to the Presidency over or is this current period a brief lull until we go back to that pattern?
Obama and Trump weren't unseating an incumbent. It was challenger v challenger in their first elections. I am 99% sure that the pattern will hold as it has for well over 100 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks
I think one big flaw in the Governor for President argument is that we are looking at a very small sample....we've only had 45 Presidents. And Trump is not a "normal" President as even many of his supporters like to note.
Every incumbent up for reelection is described by the opposition as the worst one ever, and this time, you'll see, by gosh! Obama was the worst president ever to run for reelection since...well...the last guy, Bush, who was the worst one to run for reelection since...well...Clinton...etc. Only governors unseat incumbent Presidents. Deval Patrick won't be around after two primaries, if he lasts that long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks
All that said, I AGREE with you that the battleground states will be key and that is why I think a moderate like Klobuchar would be best suited to take on Trump. Too bad she isn't polling better.
The two best candidates in the Dem field to actually offer up anything that middle America cares about are running near dead last in all polling and won't last three primaries before tossing in the towel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks
Trump’s 2016 path to the White House was the political equivalent of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker. That may not be replicable in 2020 with an agitated Democratic electorate. And that is bad news for Donald Trump because the Blue Wall of the Midwest was then, and is now, the ONLY viable path for Trump to win the White House. Though this all depends on who gets the nomination and what kind of campaign they run....
Actually, Trump winning in 2016 was the poker equivalent of a crooked dealer trying to deal Hillary a royal flush but screwing it up and giving her king high busted flush while they gave Trump ace high busted 4 of a kind, and he called every one of the DNC's all-ins. His hand was just slightly less crappy than hers, they just thought they stacked it better and she had the hand won without trying.
The Dem electorate is always agitated, same as the Republican electorate. The three things the Dems have to have to possibly unseat Trump are:
95% lock on the black vote and high participation of black voters.
55% or higher among independents and high participation.
Given the near perfect history of underpolling Trump's approval, they need 55% or better in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.
As it stands, Trump is polling:
34% approval among blacks
48-56% among independents, depending on the poll
49% or better in all 5 listed swing states.
And he leads money raising by exponential numbers, he commands the media time because well, he is the sitting President (the huge incumbent advantage nobody ever seems to remember), the economy is roaring along and too strong to dip hard enough by next November to make any Democrat candidate's plan sound better than the daily reality, and every day impeachment goes on, his numbers go up, just like they did for Clinton.
Bookmark this post if you like, because I'll say it once more for the cheap seats - he wins 34 states minimum, 36 likely, 38-39 max. Bank on it.
Obama and Trump weren't unseating an incumbent. It was challenger v challenger in their first elections. I am 99% sure that the pattern will hold as it has for well over 100 years.
Every incumbent up for reelection is described by the opposition as the worst one ever, and this time, you'll see, by gosh! Obama was the worst president ever to run for reelection since...well...the last guy, Bush, who was the worst one to run for reelection since...well...Clinton...etc. Only governors unseat incumbent Presidents. Deval Patrick won't be around after two primaries, if he lasts that long.
The two best candidates in the Dem field to actually offer up anything that middle America cares about are running near dead last in all polling and won't last three primaries before tossing in the towel.
Actually, Trump winning in 2016 was the poker equivalent of a crooked dealer trying to deal Hillary a royal flush but screwing it up and giving her king high busted flush while they gave Trump ace high busted 4 of a kind, and he called every one of the DNC's all-ins. His hand was just slightly less crappy than hers, they just thought they stacked it better and she had the hand won without trying.
The Dem electorate is always agitated, same as the Republican electorate. The three things the Dems have to have to possibly unseat Trump are:
95% lock on the black vote and high participation of black voters.
55% or higher among independents and high participation.
Given the near perfect history of underpolling Trump's approval, they need 55% or better in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.
As it stands, Trump is polling:
34% approval among blacks
48-56% among independents, depending on the poll
49% or better in all 5 listed swing states.
And he leads money raising by exponential numbers, he commands the media time because well, he is the sitting President (the huge incumbent advantage nobody ever seems to remember), the economy is roaring along and too strong to dip hard enough by next November to make any Democrat candidate's plan sound better than the daily reality, and every day impeachment goes on, his numbers go up, just like they did for Clinton.
Bookmark this post if you like, because I'll say it once more for the cheap seats - he wins 34 states minimum, 36 likely, 38-39 max. Bank on it.
Can we stop it with the "rigged" elections nonsense? Trump won because he was in the right places at the right time. Hillary was in the wrong places at the wrong time. Case closed.
Other than that, I don't disagree with most of what you've written above. Very hard to unseat an incumbent with a good economy at their back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
